Should we ban pornography?

[Thermodolia]

I guess it's fine to just let adults watch porn at their own risk, but we can't let children watch porn. Watching porn as a kid can make you kind of addicted to porn, and that's not good.

And you have a source for this claim?

[Katganistan]

Pornography shouldn't be banned, but Rape should be banned, although i am Christian i believe that everyone should have the right to watch pornography if they want to

Rape is banned.

I mean, really.

[Katganistan]

Except that in this case, you just literally can't enforce it.

As the song from Avenue Q says "the Internet is for porn"

Trekkie!

[Zanera]

Understanding free speech to cover porn is as asinine as understanding right to bear arms as covering chemical weapons.

Pepper spray should be banned by the Geneva Convention, and the penalty should be being burned alive inside a Bronze Bull full of pepper spray. It shall also appease the pepper gods.

[The New California Republic]

(Image)

Pepper spray should be banned by the Geneva Convention, and the penalty should be being burned alive inside a Bronze Bull full of pepper spray. It shall also appease the pepper gods.

Oh how far we have fallen from the porn tree...

[Souseiseki]

they can ban "obscene" materials as they are explicitly not covered by the first amendment. which exact kinds of pornography count as obscene at any given time, however, is a crap shoot. realistically, it's a bullshit "we want free speech but woah hold on there we don't want it to be that free" clause that shouldn't exist in a modern country but we're unlikely to get rid of it specifically because it's so useful as a way of avoiding the first amendment on controversial issues.

Understanding free speech to cover porn is as asinine as understanding right to bear arms as covering chemical weapons.

pornography, as with all media, is considered in relation to freedom of expression. freedom of expression and freedom of speech are incredibly intertwined. there's a reason that every time pornography comes up in the supreme court they making a ruling in relation to the first amendment. as i said, realistically it should be covered and the only reason it usually isn't is because we have a special distaste for pornography.

see: the free speech coalition, a group of pornography producers, who have made successful appeals against prohibitions on certain kinds of pornography due to violations of the first amendment

[Zanera]

Pepper spray should be banned by the Geneva Convention, and the penalty should be being burned alive inside a Bronze Bull full of pepper spray. It shall also appease the pepper gods.

Oh how far we have fallen from the porn tree...

Nah, I think we can make porn from pepper spray.

[Katganistan]

https://courses2.cit.cornell.edu/social ... ndment.htm

You believe incorrectly.

"the Supreme Court's position on First Amendment protection of obscene material, as articulated in Roth, has not changed"

Of course, ignore all but part of one sentence.

'
Good job there.

[Ifreann]

Pepper spray should be banned by the Geneva Convention, and the penalty should be being burned alive inside a Bronze Bull full of pepper spray. It shall also appease the pepper gods.

The pepper gods should definitely be appeased.

[Fartsniffage]

Pepper spray should be banned by the Geneva Convention, and the penalty should be being burned alive inside a Bronze Bull full of pepper spray. It shall also appease the pepper gods.

The pepper gods should definitely be appeased.

The pepper gods are nothing to sneeze at.

[La Vendee]

What you're telling me is that mass murder, theft, and deception is horrrible for humans but fine for God? That's textbook tyranny. To believe that the Christian God has perfect morality is to believe that tyranny is perfectly fine as long as the tyrant says it's okay.

God is the definition of morality and commits no evil. Arguing against him as a fallible human is laughable.

OK then, provide evidence for your shit. Provide actual evidence that this objective morality exists. I remind you again that sitting around thinking hard does not constitute evidence.

It's rather simple. The only morality that can exist is objective. Subjective morality is not morality at all and is simple invalidated by a contrary opinion. E.g: you've argued that we shouldn't "force" people to use more dangerous stimulants instead of porn, but there is nothing objectively wrong with endangering people.

Sorry bud, It doesn't work like that.

There cannot be "One True God Given Morality" if Morality is, by definition, man-made

Even IF this God's morality is the one True morality, then Which morals are actually his and not the writings of some desert civilization?

In Ephesians 6:5-8, it clearly states that Slaves should obey their masters, so does that mean it's morally wrong to, oh I don't know, rebel against a Pimp?

I even have some Old Testament as well, In Exodus 35:2 it is LAW by god that those who work on Sunday should DIE.

So, if Morality IS objective, does God's morals include THIS?

Likewise, bud.
Morality is by definition not man-made, or else it is not morality at all.
All morals belong to God and not any civilization.
Re: Ephesians, a pimp is not a legitimate position of authority.
Re: Exodus, do you have a question? Or is it simply your opinion that the law was morally wrong? Because if morality is subjective, there's nothing wrong with putting to death a person who works on the Sabbath (not Sunday, btw).

Morality is objective and all of God's commands are moral. However, the ceremonial law (ways in which God commanded the nation of ancient Israel to eat, practice justice, dress etc) was specifically to distinguish Israel as the nation from which Christ would come. Once that happened, it is like an invitation to a wedding that has already happened - true for its time, but no longer applicable. The moral law, describing what is right and wrong, is immutable.

Don't forget that the Old Testament doesn't count because we need an arbitrary reason to disavow the bulk of the really nasty moral code

TIL, actually reading the Bible and listening to the commands of Jesus (e.g. declaring all foods clean) counts as an arbitrary reason.

Difference being we've proven addition. Very comprehensively, actually. Like, maybe you're thinking "But it's obvious, you take two things and then two more things then there are four things", but what I'm saying is that we've proven addition from first mathematical principles. Hundreds of pages of symbolic logic.

Whereas God and his morality are things that Christians tell us we just need to believe in.

"Math is just things that mathematicians tell us we need to believe in." You're missing the point though. It's as futile to argue to God that you know morality better as it is to argue to the universe that you know math better.

But people who are not Catholics don't give a shit about Catholic morality.
And some people who ARE Catholics disagree with you.

So? Fallible human opinions are irrelevant to moral fact.

[The New California Republic]

But people who are not Catholics don't give a shit about Catholic morality.
And some people who ARE Catholics disagree with you.

So? Fallible human opinions are irrelevant to moral fact.

But that still equates to: "God told me that something is immoral, and that moral code applies to everyone, even if they don't believe in said God. It is right to force that morality on everyone, as their opinions are fallible, so their opinions don't matter really. All that matters is that we obey the word of God, whose existence I cannot prove, but I do not need to, because human opinions are fallible, except for the opinion that I know God exists and I know what he wants". Do you not see one tiny little problem with that?

[Zanera]

Pepper spray should be banned by the Geneva Convention, and the penalty should be being burned alive inside a Bronze Bull full of pepper spray. It shall also appease the pepper gods.

The pepper gods should definitely be appeased.

Perhaps they shall bless us with an ever-more hotter pepper.

[Salandriagado]

I guess it's fine to just let adults watch porn at their own risk, but we can't let children watch porn. Watching porn as a kid can make you kind of addicted to porn, and that's not good.

This is what parenting is for.

[The Parkus Empire]

Understanding free speech to cover porn is as asinine as understanding right to bear arms as covering chemical weapons.

pornography, as with all media, is considered in relation to freedom of expression. freedom of expression and freedom of speech are incredibly intertwined. there's a reason that every time pornography comes up in the supreme court they making a ruling in relation to the first amendment. as i said, realistically it should be covered and the only reason it usually isn't is because we have a special distaste for pornography.

see: the free speech coalition, a group of pornography producers, who have made successful appeals against prohibitions on certain kinds of pornography due to violations of the first amendment

There is no such right as freedom of expression anymore than "personal sovereignty"

[Salandriagado]

OK then, provide evidence for your shit. Provide actual evidence that this objective morality exists. I remind you again that sitting around thinking hard does not constitute evidence.

It's rather simple. The only morality that can exist is objective. Subjective morality is not morality at all and is simple invalidated by a contrary opinion.

This does not imply that such a thing exists. "It not existing is scary and complicated" is not an argument for the existence of anything.

E.g: you've argued that we shouldn't "force" people to use more dangerous stimulants instead of porn, but there is nothing objectively wrong with endangering people.

No. But subjectively, I think that there is something wrong with it.

[Ifreann]

Difference being we've proven addition. Very comprehensively, actually. Like, maybe you're thinking "But it's obvious, you take two things and then two more things then there are four things", but what I'm saying is that we've proven addition from first mathematical principles. Hundreds of pages of symbolic logic.

Whereas God and his morality are things that Christians tell us we just need to believe in.

"Math is just things that mathematicians tell us we need to believe in."

It's not though. Feel free to read the Principia Mathematica yourself.

You're missing the point though. It's as futile to argue to God that you know morality better as it is to argue to the universe that you know math better.

You're missing my point. We can prove things in maths. That's how we know them to be true, and how we know how true they are. That's how we know it's pointless to contradict them. On the other hand, I can tell you that God is an Invisible Pink Unicorn and can you prove me wrong?

[Salandriagado]

What you're telling me is that mass murder, theft, and deception is horrrible for humans but fine for God? That's textbook tyranny. To believe that the Christian God has perfect morality is to believe that tyranny is perfectly fine as long as the tyrant says it's okay.

God is the definition of morality and commits no evil. Arguing against him as a fallible human is laughable.

Assuming your conclusion.

Difference being we've proven addition. Very comprehensively, actually. Like, maybe you're thinking "But it's obvious, you take two things and then two more things then there are four things", but what I'm saying is that we've proven addition from first mathematical principles. Hundreds of pages of symbolic logic.

Whereas God and his morality are things that Christians tell us we just need to believe in.

"Math is just things that mathematicians tell us we need to believe in." You're missing the point though. It's as futile to argue to God that you know morality better as it is to argue to the universe that you know math better.

Again: mathematics only applies within a system of reasoning. If you want to claim that it also applies to the real world, then you need evidence.

And since you insist, here's a proof that 2+2=4 (in the PA system):

2 + 2 = SS(0) + SS(0) [by the definition of "2"]
= S(SS(0) + S(0)) [by the recursive definition of "+"]
= S(S(SS(0) + 0)) [by the recursive definition of "+"]
= S(S(SS(0))) [by the base definition of "+"]
= SSSS(0) [by the associativity of function composition]
= 4 [be the definition of "4"]

[Bakery Hill]

This is modern "intellectual" knowledge in all its glory.

They are not wrong about the taxonomy of both animals. Your disdain is noted, and treated as irrelevant.

So when someone asks you about the most important thing about a certain farm animal, they tell you it's name in Latin. Not that it's smarter than a donkey and more resilient than a horse, not that it is almost universally infertile (which was the point here), not even what it looks like or what noise it makes. This is the basis of all IQ tests now, categorisation, it's a Western bourgeois rationalist obsession. I don't know if that seems stupid to you, but it's useless as tits on a bull to me.

I also don't know why you're trawling back a couple of days to a conversation that didn't involve you to tell me my disdain is irrelevant. Surely if it was so it would not have been given so much attention.

[Bakery Hill]

It's not about animals, it's about humans. It's about sustaining a set of moral stands that promote a stable, productive and equal society.

So I suppose you want to also ban any kind of sexual fantasy roleplay in the privacy of two adults' home? No more Doctor/Nurse-Patient RP, for instance?

Why not simply mind your own business, deal with your sexuality in the way that makes you feel most comfortable, and leave other people's harmless diversions alone?

No they both need degrees before that can happen.

[The New California Republic]

So I suppose you want to also ban any kind of sexual fantasy roleplay in the privacy of two adults' home? No more Doctor/Nurse-Patient RP, for instance?

Why not simply mind your own business, deal with your sexuality in the way that makes you feel most comfortable, and leave other people's harmless diversions alone?

No they both need degrees before that can happen.

Exactly. Which is why I am allowed to do philosophy-based sexual fantasy roleplay. Guys and gals really dig it when I do The Thinker pose...

[Bakery Hill]

No they both need degrees before that can happen.

Exactly. Which is why I am allowed to do philosophy-based sexual fantasy roleplay. Guys and gals really dig it when I do The Thinker pose...

Yes you are permitted to do this. Good luck and godspeed.

[Fartsniffage]

No they both need degrees before that can happen.

Exactly. Which is why I am allowed to do philosophy-based sexual fantasy roleplay. Guys and gals really dig it when I do The Thinker pose...

My degree is in politics. If you tell me that I have to fuck a Trump then I might just have to hunt down and murder you......

[Ifreann]

Exactly. Which is why I am allowed to do philosophy-based sexual fantasy roleplay. Guys and gals really dig it when I do The Thinker pose...

My degree is in politics. If you tell me that I have to fuck a Trump then I might just have to hunt down and murder you......

There's always May.

[Fartsniffage]

My degree is in politics. If you tell me that I have to fuck a Trump then I might just have to hunt down and murder you......

There's always May.

....I've done worse.